[PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: arm: Document Socionext MB86S71 and Fujitsu F-Cue

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 13 November 2017 at 15:40, Andreas Färber <afaerber at suse.de> wrote:
> Am 06.11.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:
>> On 6 November 2017 at 06:58, Andreas Färber <afaerber at suse.de> wrote:
>>> Am 05.11.2017 um 04:39 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Again, I am not the one who is ranting here. You hit a nerve by
>>>> accusing me of 'rebelling against linux.git' while this is quite the
>>>> opposite of what I am doing.
>>>
>>> Actually you did confirm that point by starting an argument about not
>>> needing a central repository and you not liking Linux as the location.
>>> That was exactly what I meant with my original comment.
>>>
>>> Adding Actions Semi was somewhat easy as a new vendor and now - roughly
>>> a year after the board went to market - there's Linaro contributions
>>> from Mani that I'm thankful for.
>>>
>>> Whereas patches keep falling into a dark hole when there's already other
>>> work for a certain vendor, such as Marvell and now Socionext, with no
>>> one feeling responsible for either taking them or saying, "hey, we're
>>> not going to submit any conflicting DT bindings for SynQuacer because we
>>> use ACPI, so please go ahead with proposal X, thanks for your efforts".
>>>
>>> Don't complain about me ranting if you belittle my volunteer work that I
>>> believe Linaro and its partners should've done in the first place: If I
>>> can get an initial mainline PoC done as an individual on a few
>>> evenings/weekends, then the same should be super-easy for an
>>> organization with lots of engineers and paying member companies.
>>
>> The only person doing the ranting, rebelling and belittling in this
>> thread is you. I have never commented on the nature of your work, let
>> alone belittle it.
>
> You have stated your opinion that Device Trees don't belong in a central
> repository and that Linux was the wrong place for them.

Not as strongly as that, but ok.

> My contributions
> to Linux have been mainly such Device Trees and bindings, such as this
> patch series here.

Again, I don't have a clue what it is you work on, although I just
found out (from the other thread you started) that it involves a
Fujitsu not-quite-96board that shares IP with the SynQuacer SoC? It
was my understanding (from information I received from Socionext) that
any upstreaming efforts involving that SoC had been discarded. I guess
the Socionext and Fujitsu engineers are not talking to each other
either.

> Quod erat demonstrandum.

Mathematical proof usually involves inferring new facts from existing
facts. You have done nothing of the kind, and I am not sure what you
are so angry about, but I think it would be better to leave the
emotions out of it, and try to remain factual. Especially when it
comes to representing other people's statements.

-- 
Ard.